I really want to live in the alternate reality conservatives live in. How can you live your life and create problems and scenarios like they do? Boredom? Poor mental health? Insecurities??
Like us trans people are just here, trying to exist and live our lives.
The religion part is really sad because my entire family is very catholic and they don’t mind me being trans at all. They keep telling me the Bible preaches love and acceptance, happiness etc. Oh well 🤷
My ex sent me a text asking a question, I didn’t respond when I noticed it because she would have been asleep and promptly forgot about it. In three weeks it’ll be two years.
I should wait until then and reply with a simple “Nope”.
There was this one guy I was good friends with during my late teens, always taking pictures of us… Took me embarrassingly long to realise he had the gay hots for me. In my defense, I leaned way more hetero at the time.
Both of you are coming vague. His “leaning more hetero at the time” and your emphasis on ACTUALLY, you sound like you’re doubting that a person can like penises and vaginas, or just straight up not care.
He’s probably bi or pan. Probably always had been. He probably didn’t realize it in school, or wouldn’t admit it to himself due to societal pressure. He seems to be more comfortable about it now. It really doesn’t need much more detail.
I feel like lemmy is sticking more to the old reddiquette upvote/downvote culture of “upvote if it contributes to the conversation, downvote if not”, and not the modern culture of “upvote is if lols”.
Hey! Perks that actually (a) trigger when intended, and aren’t bugged out (b) do something actually useful - are quite unusual in Fallout; there’s plenty of them that are just a trap for the unwary to waste their slots on.
I’d also nominate the ‘lady killer / cherchez la femme’ perk as being one of those traps; the vast majority of the enemies you have to kill are male, and certainly all the ones who are difficult. It gives a few interesting dialogue options, but there’s more effective perk choices.
I think the second girl meant the first one acted weird and awkward around everybody, not just her crush, so it’s not reasonable to conclude the second girl was the crush anyway.
But second girl only ever sees how first girl acts when she is around (regardless of who else is there). That’s how perception works. She can’t see how first girl acts when she’s not there, because she wouldn’t be there to see it.
That’s how I read it and dark hair was just like “wow I can’t believe I said that to someone” sometimes it takes us a while to realize we put our foot in our mouth but the interpretation that is more common in this thread probably makes more sense.
My company sent me a fishing test email from a “no-reply@companyname.com” email address. I sent it to our security department and asked if I would ever get legitimate emails from that address. They never responded except to say that I passed the phishing test, so I set up a filter to automatically forward emails from that to our security department with a message questioning its validity. Let’s security tell me if emails are legit or not.
My normal method is I will hit the phishing attempt icon that IT Security added to our Outlook on anything that I did not request or sign up for.
I’m sure the IT Security person who saw all the “free gift card” emails had a great Christmas if they claimed all the gift cards emails they deem legit.
Justify their jobs? Their job is to set shit up, then be around at all times to help already frustrated people to do something they just forgot how to do today for no reason. And then, to politely listen as the person makes excuses to preserve their ego
Security compliance? That’s handed down to them. If they had a hard on for cyber security, they could make 2-3x as much and no longer have to explain to people that they joined the wrong teams call
I make a point to get to know the service staff. Chat with the custodian. Go to IT when you don’t have a problem… Get to know them a little as a person. Then, when you have a problem, you don’t have to make a ticket and wait for them to get to you. You already know them, and they feel respected as a person - they might not drop everything, but they’re going to bend the rules and quietly tell you how to navigate the system to get what you need as painlessly as possible
They’ll also know if you’re an idiot or not already - they might know to trust you at your word, or they might know tech makes your eyes go glassy and hold your hand patiently… But either way, the respect makes them want to help you, and the preexisting relationship makes the whole experience less painful
It is a shit job… It’s the overlap between being in the service industry and a tech worker. Almost all of them couldn’t make it in a more specialized role that would pay far, far more, and if you walk in during downtime half of them will be practicing their programming hoping to get a better job
The IT people send out the phishing mail themselves as part of a test. It isn’t an actual phishing mail, just something made to look and act like one. In the end they have a report which people fell for it, which ignored it (or were ooo) and which reported it.
Reporting is done via the report phishing feature in Outlook. For consumers it’s sent to Microsoft, but for businesses you can configure those reports to do what you want. It’s actually a really good feature and people should always use it.
Does your IT team tell you that they’re performing the test and to report, or is reporting phishing always constantly recommended. I’ve managed a small org ( <100 ) email server and we tried to have people report suspicious emails and it was so much noise and wasted so much time. Of course the CEO isn’t requesting you buy gift cards, what am I going to do about it. I’d say the money would be better spent on a better system rather than hope one human forwards it to another human.
They don’t tell us they are testing, it’s done at random. Reporting is policy, it needs to be done with every phishing mail that gets past the filters. It’s one of the big ways a company is vulnerable, an employee clicks on a link in a mail, opens something they shouldn’t and before you know it there’s been a databreach. I don’t think they are especially worried about the employee leaking his personal info, they are worried about targeted attacks and corporate espionage.
I’m sure there are a lot of false positives. Even though I work in a technical company, we have plenty of people who aren’t as handy with tech. People get training regularly and if one person reports a lot of useless I’m sure they will train that person extra. I think for a lot of people except maybe sales something like 80% of all mail is internal. And the other part is probably 50% repeating automated mails. So the number of mails that could even be phishing are limited. It’s a mid sized company with about 1000 employees.
I see the benefit of reporting to catch false negatives of the filters, but in reality, if I received more than one report in a week or two, id consider a new system for scanning. A 20% false negative rate is pretty bad. Most emails should be easily identified, and I think it’s unreasonable for end users to check if the sender domain name is newly registered, has utf-8 characters which look like ASCII characters, etc. The metric for success shouldn’t be a high number of end users reporting phishing emails, but that seems to be what upper management wants to see, which just incentives less resources invested in better scanners with less than a 20% false negative rate.
The metric for success shouldn’t be a high number of end users reporting phishing emails, but that seems to be what upper management wants to see, which just incentives less resources invested in better scanners with less than a 20% false negative rate.
The eternal battle between the “oh we go by data backed metrics, much measured, I feel this is the best” executive suite and the poor saps beneath twirling the data backed signs going ignored until money or disaster strikes.
Pity businesses aren’t formed from the bottom up; it’s like an octopus deciding not to listen to its arm brains until the shark has a bite of its head.
I created an inbox rule for these. The 3rd party phishing shame-and-train company my employer uses always has a certain domain in the email header (even though they always change the ‘from’ address). Has worked perfectly for over 6 months. I’m generally not dumb enough to click on them anyway. But anyone can have a bad day and/or get into a rush and make a mistake. And my boss is a sadistic prick who delights in making workers feel dumb. Yet I’m 100% sure he exempts himself from the phishing shit tests.
The point isn’t to be so tricky to make it too hard for end users to catch it. It’s to train them to start looking at things such as senders domain and to report messages and avoid the link, etc.
lemmy.blahaj.zone
Top